# C_2018112EN.01003202.xml

| 26.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/32

---

Action brought on 16 January 2018 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-14/18)

(2018/C 112/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and Ε. Chroni, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic with respect to area aid for the year 2014 which corresponds to 5 % of the total costs incurred with respect to pasture-related aid, gross amount EUR 15 583 893,42 (net amount EUR 12 482 555,68)· |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision in so far as it excludes from European Union financing expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic with respect to area aid for the year 2014 which corresponds to 5 % of the total costs incurred with respect to pasture-related aid, gross amount EUR 15 583 893,42 (net amount EUR 12 482 555,68)·

| — | Order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the legal costs of the Hellenic Republic.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | The first plea in law is based on the claim that as regards the imposition of the 5 % financial correction at issue with respect to pasture-related area aid, no reasons were stated, there was an error of fact, and the principle of proportionality was infringed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first plea in law is based on the claim that as regards the imposition of the 5 % financial correction at issue with respect to pasture-related area aid, no reasons were stated, there was an error of fact, and the principle of proportionality was infringed.

| 2. | The second plea in law is based on a claimed infringement of Article 31(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005, and of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation (ΕU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013, read together with Articles 12(1) to (6) and 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 907/2014 of 6 August 2014, and also an infringement of the Commission Guidelines in documents VI/5330797 and C(2015)3675 final/8-6-2015. It is further claimed that it is not permissible to accumulate two corrections for the same reason and that the principle of proportionality was infringed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second plea in law is based on a claimed infringement of Article 31(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (ΕC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005, and of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation (ΕU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013, read together with Articles 12(1) to (6) and 8 of Commission Delegated Regulation (ΕU) No 907/2014 of 6 August 2014, and also an infringement of the Commission Guidelines in documents VI/5330797 and C(2015)3675 final/8-6-2015. It is further claimed that it is not permissible to accumulate two corrections for the same reason and that the principle of proportionality was infringed.

---